“This represents a 58 per cent increase in the amount of clean electricity that Ontario wasted in 2015 – 4.8 TWh – all while the province continues to export more than 2 million homes-worth of electricity to neighbouring jurisdictions for a price less than what it cost to produce,” said Paul Acchione, P.Eng., energy expert and former President and Chair of OSPE.

OSPE shared these findings with all three major political parties, and will be at Queen’s Park this morning to speak to media regarding the importance of granting professional engineers more independence in the planning and designing of Ontario’s power system.

So why is Ontario wasting all this energy?

“Curtailment is an industry term that means the power was not needed in Ontario, and could not be exported, so it was dumped. It’s when we tell our dams to let the water spill over top, our nuclear generators to release their steam, and our wind turbines not to turn, even when it’s windy,” said Acchione.

“These numbers show that Ontario’s cleanest source of power is literally going down the drain because we’re producing too much. Speaking as an engineer, an environmentalist, and a rate payer, it’s an unnecessary waste of beautiful, clean energy, and it’s driving up the cost of electricity.”

In addition to curtailment, surplus hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear generation was exported to adjoining power grids in 2014, 2015, and 2016 at prices much lower than the total cost of production. This occurs because Ontario produces more clean electricity than it can use, so it is forced to sell off surplus energy at a discounted rate. Total exports in 2016 were 21.9 TWh compared to 22.6 TWh in 2015, and a significant portion was clean, zero-emission electricity.

“Taken together, those total exports represent nearly enough electricity to power every home in Ontario for an entire year,” said Acchione. “OSPE continues to assert that the government must restore the oversight of professional engineers in the detailed planning and design of Ontario’s power grid to prevent missteps like this from happening.”

Engineers have solutions

Because Ontario is contractually obligated to pay for most of the production costs of curtailed and exported energy, OSPE believes it would be better to find productive uses for the surplus clean electricity to displace fossil fuel consumption in other economic sectors. In the summer of 2016, OSPE submitted an advisory document to the Minister of Energy and all three major political parties detailing 21 actionable recommendations that would deliver efficiencies and savings, including reducing residential and commercial rates by approximately 25 per cent, without the creation of the subsidy and deferral account under the Ontario Fair Hydro Act.

OSPE also recommended the establishment of a voluntary interruptible retail electricity market in order to make productive use of Ontario’s excess clean electricity. This market would allow Ontario businesses and residents to access surplus clean power at the wholesale market price of less than two cents per kilowatt-hour (KWh), which could displace the use of fossil fuels by using things like dual fuel (gas and electric) water heaters, and by producing emission-free hydrogen fuel.

Ontario is currently in the process of finalizing its 2017 Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP), a multi-year guiding document that will direct the province’s investments and operations related to energy. This presents a key opportunity for the government to reduce Ontarians’ hydro bills by making surplus clean electricity available to consumers.

“It is imperative that we depoliticize what should be technical judgments regarding energy mix, generation, distribution, pricing and future investments in Ontario,” said Jonathan Hack, P.Eng., President & Chair of OSPE. “We are very concerned that the government does not currently have enough engineers in Ministry staff positions to be able to properly assess the balance between environmental commitments and economic welfare when it comes to energy.

Professional Engineers must be given independence in planning and designing integrated power and energy system plans, which will in turn benefit all Ontarians.”

About the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE)

OSPE is the voice of the engineering profession in Ontario, representing more than 80,000 professional engineers and 250,000 engineering graduates, interns, and students.

While curtailment will decrease during the nuclear refurbishment program that began in October 2016 and the retirement of the Pickering reactors scheduled to occur from 2022 to 2024, it will rise again when the refurbished reactors return to service, unless the government takes action.

OSPE’s Energy Task Force has provided strategic engineering input to Ontario’s Ministry of Energy for more than ten years. The majority of OSPE’s recommendations have been fully or partially implemented over the past five years, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars per year. But more can be done if government engages Ontario’s engineers to optimize the use of the province’s clean electrical power system.

What do you think Ontario should do with its surplus clean electricity? Share your ideas and comments below.

Surplus energy should be sold at cost to Ontario residences and businesses, and indeed overall price rates should be lowered in order to decrease the amount of surplus power curtailed or sold at a loss

I didn’t forget it all. I also remember that China is building coal plants as we speak, and Angela Merkel has been hamstrung in the last election, no doubt at least in part by her fixation on expensive green energy. I will also point out Germany is also building and using coal plants

Agreed. Furthermore, rather than “curtail” or “dump” surplus energy, this electricity ought to be provided FREE OF CHARGE and sans taxation to hospitals and long-term care facilities and retirement homes for seniors.

Time to introduce this power to the general grid system, after all we all paid for it? Remember when heating your home electrically was pushed hard? What the Hell happened? Wynne milked that cow to thin milk, then to death. Ontario needs a fully empowered Energy Board, a system that reaches beyond politics and is run by competent qualified professional Electrical engineers: As it is, Kathleen Wynne’s prize catch, and the man that costs us a fortune and possibly more in ineptitude,:
Doug Alexander and Scott Deveau, Bloomberg News Monday, Sept. 28, 2015
Hydro One Ltd. will pay its top executive as much as $4 million in annual compensation, according to regulatory filings, slightly more than other large Canadian power companies.
His C.V. shows no expertise in things electrical at all? No recent education in this New Age? He is an American that thinks that Northern Ontario is “Alabama North”?http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com%2Fexecutive%2Fc-suite%2Fhyrdo-one-ceos-pay-of-4-million-with-bonus-approaches-top-endhttps://www.thestar.com/…/opgs-executive-salaries-to…
is a graduate MECHANICAL ENGINEER from the 1950’s in the US!!! FFS!!!
Hydro Quebec makes a profit, Hydro Quebec charges Quebecois 1/3 what Ontarians pay, and is headed by REAL Electrical Engineering Phd’s not pseudo smart American jerk offs? Why Can Wynne find this quality of help for Ontario? Did a certain kind of snotty prejudice play a role here? He is an American that thinks that Northern Ontario is “Alabama North”?

You could Google: Hydro One CEO’s pay of $4 million with bonus approaches top end, or #HydroOneCEO’spayof$4millionwithbonusapproachestopend

For the second link Google: OPG’s executive salaries to rise by as much as $8M while Metrolinx proposes $100K boost for CEO, or #OPG’sexecutivesalariestorisebyasmuchas$8MwhileMetrolinxproposes$100KboostforCEO

Then stop using power forcing millions of kids to breath crap out of gas plants. In Mississauga and Toronto. My family along with literally a million people live less then a km from the gas plant at Cheery Beach that you and your family use power from . And forcing millions of families to live beside the Pickering nuclear plant, what about their property values. Wind turbines are gorgeous and cheaper at 7 cents per kWh. we pay 15 cents for gas generation.

Again, your statement was ‘within one kilometre’… which clearly is wrong

February 14, 2018

Mrs. Ashe

Agreed, I reside where hideous industrial wind farms were built, and which now BLIGHT the pristine landscape. NIMBY also works for US who live in the country because we don’t care to live in industrial messes. Put the damned windmills in the CITY where the most energy is used.

Redirect all excess electricity to private and public sector enterprises at the wholesale price in order to reduce operating expenses and re-invest in new ideas that will generate private sector jobs ( we already have too many public servants).

Storage is now available in the form of li-ion batteries at very low cost. Audi said their battery costs are half what industry analyst believed at $112/kW.
The gas plants in Ontario over 30 were built to back up the nuclear plants not wind and solar.
Battery tech in front of gas generators like in California allows gas plants to be idled completely and with a minimum amount of storage and cost.

This would be great if it were possible. Problem is they don’t need it/won’t pay the fuel cost (let along the cost of production). I think that’s what makes OSPEs solution so perfect: Ontario consumers who are otherwise burning gas or oil can use this clean electricity instead at its fuel cost… they have already paid for the capital costs. Really smart stuff.

An investigation into heath impacts of wind turbines was initiated in March 2016. (Ontario’s HPPA, Health Protection and Promotion Act). Since then we have had one delay after another, and still no remedy for those living under turbines.

As of July 4th, 2017, Erica Clark informed me they have heard back University of Waterloo ethics and are now planning another ethics applications to address concerns raised.

Meanwhile I have been told that all communication of the ethics board, including the names an positions of the applicants, is confidential.

Germany now has over 23,000 wind turbines. Yes INDUSTRIAL wind turbines built to 80M high. And a population of 80 million people in a country smaller then Ontario. Their heads must be exploding! Everyday kids breath the crap out of the 30 gas plants in the province that you personally use power from, but you have no concern. My family lives less then 1km from the Cherry Beach Gas plant that you use power from. Wind turbines are the safest cleanest cheapest source of power.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/france-germany-turn-coal/
Germany is replacing its nuclear units with renewable energy (wind and solar) as part of its energy transition, the so-called Energiewende. It is using mainly coal to back-up its intermittent renewable energy and as a result, it has increased its coal-fired generation. Due to the higher cost of wind and solar units, residential electricity prices have escalated and are 3 times that of the United States.

Wind turbines are not the cheapest source of power. They are extremely unreliable. They should only represent a small part of the generation mix. The gas plant near your home is in a perfect location as it is close to the load center. This eliminates the need for hundreds of kilometers of transmission that would be required to bring unreliable power to your family’s home.

Germany has over 23,000 INDUSTRIAL WIND TURBINES OF THE BIGGEST VARIETIES ALONG WITH 80 MILLION PEOPLE. And nobody is getting headaches. 80 million people in a space small;er then Ontario. What was the cost of the fires in Fort Mac when the 8 month long fire started, $11 billion out of everybody’s pockets. It was 92 degrees the day the fire started. That was May 5th and it should have been 48 degrees! That is climate change.

I see people suggesting that surplus power, i.e. the power curtailed or spilled, be provided to the grid. Little do they realize that not curtailing power output would de-stabilize the grid, specifically raise the voltage above acceptable levels. The key aspect they don’t understand it that the grid is NOT a battery. Perhaps the OSPEng could help by providing some basic educational material that would serve to clarify issues such as this.

Certainly it might have helped the Liberal government to write contracts that does not oblige payment to wind farm owners in the event high levels of wind aren’t needed. In fact, wind (and solar) suppliers should be obliged to store any surplus until it’s needed if they expect payment. As it stands, wind and solar contracts are already incomprehensibly high and driving up the Global Adjustment to unprecedented delivered electricity prices!

People are not just suggesting the excess power be added to the grid… they are suggesting that the price per kWh be lowered to increase demand and decrease the amount of power that is excess… this price decrease could cause people to use cheaper cleaner energy instead of a gas waterheater for instance have a gas/electric water heater… for businesses the cheaper power could be used to expand and create jobs instead of relocating… so not just adding excessnpower to the grid but actually increasing demand to reduce the amount of excess power that we have to pay New York and Michigan to take…

Excellent idea, however I’m a little skeptical about the effectiveness of the power consumption increase efforts. (as long as many people are in deep debt already). I think, we should be working on createing more jobs, manufacturing should be coming back to Ontario (to increase power consumption).

Following a detailed analysis of year-end data issued by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) is reporting that in 2016, the province wasted a total of 7.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean electricity – an amount equal to powering more than 760,000 homes for one year, or a value in excess of $1 billion.

Where might one find that report? Also if the calculations on which that reported 7.6 TWh are not included in the report, where might I find those calculations?

Hello Ike – thank you for taking the time to share your comments. You’ve raised some great points and have inspired the creation of a follow up blog post that will address some common energy misconceptions, not unlike the ones that you’ve highlighted in your comment. In the meantime, please feel free to take a look at the following curtailment data for a more comprehensive look at these calculations: https://www.ospe.on.ca/public/documents/OSPE_Curtailment_Analysis.pdf. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free to reach out to our advocacy team directly by emailing advocacy@ospe.on.ca and our team would be happy to connect you with the appropriate resources or contacts.

EV’s will suck up the extra power. At a high value. Audi exec just said Audi’s battery costs are half what industry analysts believe. It is cheaper now to own and drive an EV WITHOUT any incentives. It is cheaper to lease a $43k Chevy Bolt and charge it at $500/year then to lease a crappy $20k Chevy Cruze and fill it with gas. NO INCENTIVES INCLUDED IN THAT!

How are you able to use a computer…. Run a circle out from the Cherry Beach power plant and you will hundreds of condos, hotels, schools. And so yes 6.4 million people are breathing crap from Cherry Beach when we have an easterly wind. Or from the Milton plant when we have a westerly wind. I do live 1km from it my daughter plays lacrosse 500meters from it. You are costing the people of Ontario now since wind is now sub $70/MWkhr and that is locked for 20 years. Remember how hard the people of Oakville fought the gas plant being located there.

Ok, let’s look at your statement. You claim 1 million people live within 1 km of the gas plant where you live. The GTA has a population of 6.4 million or so, in an area of about 7100 square km. The 1 km radius around your gas plant you’re speaking of has an area of about 3.5 sq km. So according to my calculations that’s less than 1000 people per sq km? So in the 4 sq km around your plant there would be about 4000 people? And you want us to listen to a word you say?

Germany has coal plants because they shut the nuke plants after Fukushima with the support of the coal industry. Remember any accident around the world at a nuke plant will have Ontario looking to close ours. That’s why we have gas back-up not because of wind and solar.

Remember how hard the people in rural Ontario fought the wind farms there? Yeah, that’s right. Remember how much those two gas plants they didn’t build cost us? Yeah, that’s right? Remember how much they actually had to cost us if the liberals didn’t mind using the out clause in the contract? Yeah that’s right…

And you can’t just cancel contracts. That’s the whole point of a contract. This is not a banana republic. And if the contract was cancelled compensation would have to have been paid. So stop using power from the gas plants and effecting millions, and we will stop asking you to locate a wind turbine in your area…

You can indeed get out of contracts. That’s why there are out- clauses in them. There were out-clauses in each of the contracts for the cancelled gas plants. The builders were in breach of contract because they hadn’t gotten local approvals in the timelines listed, and the gov’t could have gotten out of the contracts with no penalties. They chose not to… the same with the Samsung deal. Samsung hadn’t met the timelines in the contract and the gov’t could have walked away from half of the cost with no penalty. Again they chose not to…

It seems the government tries not to scare investments and opportunities away, however should be making sure not to put the province in more debt unnecessarily. Because if one gets out of a contract in such way, what will keep others from non-compliance and lack of financial responsibilities?

I think, very well thought-out and relevant clauses should be stipulated in contracts from now on. If discoveries would be made while a contract(s) in effect (for example safety related: natural gas seepage or any other safety concerns, the contract should be allowed to be cancelled, maybe with some reasonable payment for cancellation).

Except for the fact that we already produce 50% more power than we need your statement might actually make some sense… as you stated the liberals have contracted us with a surplus for decades to come and are still contracting more. So your statement to stop using power from gas plants is ridiculous and part of the problem as excess power costs more to get rid of than no power at all… and as the auditor general pointed out there was indeed an out clause on both those gas plants that would have allowed the gov’t to back out at minimal cost, (I believe the contract stated they had to have local approval). Dolton decided not to use it because he hoped to minimize the screw up. And there was an out clause in the samsung deal which would have save well over a billion the gov’t decided not to take advantage of, again because they didn’t want to show they’d made a mistake …!gea has more than doubled the cost of power and increased co2 emissions thanks to liberal ineptitude

“Health Canada and Wind Turbines: Too little too late?”. CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Blogs), November 28, 2014.
Carmen Krogh, BScPharm (retired), is a peer reviewed IWT health researcher and former Director of Publications and Editor-in-Chief of the CPS.
R Y McMurtry is Professor Emeritus (Surgery) of Western University (formerly University of Western Ontario). Dr. McMurtry was also an ADM at Health Canada 2000-02

I can’t believe Waterloo is pushing this crap. So few people live within 550m of a turbine. Not even a km. I live less then a 1km from a gas plant along with a million others. As engineers why don’t you do a simulation of when a home, and a turbine more then 500 meters away is in line with the sun. Maybe 30 minutes a year. And then half of that time the turbine is not even spinning. This women is a crack pot. As the folks around Fort Mac about the effects of climate change, when it was over 92 degrees on May 5th last year when an 8 month long fire started. 92 degrees when it should have been 45 deg.

Electrolysis of water, store the hydrogen that is produced and pump through fuel cell to produce power when demand is up. The oxygen that is produced could also be stored and sold off. Come up with a standard plant design and could do micro plants across the province to generate power where required and in turn have a more reliable grid.

Or battery storage using molten salt batteries, believe these aren’t quite as good as li-ion but cheaper to produce and because of cost likely better for a large scale battery storage solution.

Further correspondence from Erica Clark, Huron County Health Unit. Published with permission.

From: Erica Clark
Date: August 14, 2017 at 3:52:44 PM EDT

You can publish/circulate the following summary:

Status of the Huron County Health Unit wind turbine study

The wind turbine study is currently undergoing ethics review. Due to the sensitive nature of the information we intend to collect, ethics clearance is important to ensure the recruitment and data collection methods are ethical. We partnered with researchers from the University of Waterloo to do the study and submitted an application to the University of Waterloo Human Research and Ethics Committee. The application was submitted on March 2, 2017 and reviewed at the March 23, 2017 meeting. On April 5, 2017 we received a letter from the University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee listing revisions and additional information required to receive ethics clearance. We sent a response back to the University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee on May 18, 2017 detailing the changes we had made. The University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee met in June and sent us a second letter on June 27, 2017 outlining additional revisions and requests for clarification. We sent a second response back to the University of Waterloo Human Research Ethics Committee on August 9, 2017. We are now waiting for a response.

We understand that it is a long process to get ethics clearance but it is a critical step to ensure that the recruitment and data collection methods are ethical.

On the topic of Huron County, where the ‘criteria for assessment’ to initiate an investigation by the Health Unit was publicly declared already back in March of 2016 ( a year after turbines were turned on and residents started reporting harm to the Health Unit), it is well known now that the Director of Health was abruptly ‘released’ by the Huron County Health Board and that there was a sudden change of plans by the Health Unit, to do another ‘study’ rather than ‘investigation’. All of this information is in the public domain and available to verify.
As of today, the ‘study’ proposal process has taken 18 months to plan. Approval from the University of Waterloo (Research and Ethics) was part of the delay. In the meantime, nothing has been put in place to protect residents reporting harm from noise, low frequency noise modulations and infrasound radiation. The harm has continued this whole time, whenever the turbines are running above a certain level and especially during specific barometric pressure weather events.
Wouldn’t it have made sense, when curtailing turbines, to make sure that the turbines known to be causing harm in Huron County were curtailed the most? When the ‘study’ eventually begins, is it ethical to have the turbines running full tilt and causing further harm? This harm is known to be cumulative. There is evidence from around the world of this harm. Take a look at the Waubra Foundation website where a complete list is compiled of the symptoms of harm from wind turbines.
Engineers of Ontario need to be involved in this ethical crisis.
Government must provide safe and affordable energy. Experts from all relevant fields need to be working together to solve safety issues. Incompetency on this crucial portfolio in Ontario is unacceptable.

Thank you for your comment. You raise some important questions about Ontario’s renewable energy investments from an interesting perspective that go beyond the kWh and financial balance sheet.

To your question, “Wouldn’t it have made sense, when curtailing turbines, to make sure that the turbines known to be causing harm in Huron County were curtailed the most?” part of the technical answer has to do with the nature of Ontario’s grid regarding generation, transmission and capacity. One of the many interesting things about Ontario’s power system (and other systems around the world) is that where the power is generated and where it is used (i.e. residential and industrial uses) plays a large role in determining the areas where the turbines are turning and where they are not, even when Ontario’s total generation on that same day may be well in excess of what’s needed (and is subsequently dumped). In addition, wind turbines require a baseline level of motion to maintain the heat that is required to keep the turbine serviceable and in good operating quality.

At OSPE, we are at the forefront of this issue—because as you mention, it has real costs. We are strong advocates for better system planning and design, including the development of Distributed Energy Resources (DER) that make sense.

We can do better in Ontario. Every Ministry within this government has failed to protect people being harmed. No one should be ‘collateral damage’ to any energy source. This government desperately needs help in finding ways to protect everyone. The number of children being exposed to noise, low frequency noise modulations and infrasound radiation is shameful.
My concerns are for protection from all energy sources. We must do better
The need for experts in relevant fields working together on the energy portfolio is blatantly obvious in Ontario. The OSPE deserves to be heard.
This needs to be an election issue.

August 15, 2017

Rob

You know that nobody in Germany is getting headaches? What is your source for for that statement? What about Denmark? I hear Denmark de-commissioned more wind turbines last year then they put up. And I also heard Germany is still building coal plants… maybe you should actually research your statements before making them

Just think of the statement, 80 million people over twice as many as Ontario. 23,000 wind turbines. If there was any real issues with wind turbines their would be a huge push back from those 80 million that are living amongst these beautiful machines. Maybe Denmark didn’t need any additional power. DENMARK PRODUCES 42% OF THEIR POWER FOM WIND! Wind is less then 6 cents in Ontario and can be cheaper. Germany is still burning coal because after Fukushima they shut down their nuke plants fearing they are easy targets for terrorists. That was pushed by the coal lobby. You sir are directly responsible for my kid not having cleaner air to breath at recess, along with a million others.

Actually denmark’s wind power decreased last year, just as I said. It went down from 42 to 38% as they are decommissioning turbines. And much of that isn’t used by them, it’s exported – but the Danes are getting fed up with increasing power costs and fighting new applications. And there are a lot of people in Germany not happy with the wind turbines or with the cost of power- I have relatives in Germany.

Manufacturing won’t come back if you don’t decrease cost of power. And usage will go up if prices drop. I had stopped showering every day simply due to cost of electrically heated waters. I’m sure many seniors are the same. Same with air conditioning

Green Energy or fossil fuel~ nuclear? A few years ago attended a town hall meeting at my local Chapter on how Green was disruptive to our grid ,being unpredictable,etc,etc. Causing unplanned shutdowns at Nuclear plants,etc,etc.
Has that view changed now that there would have been mitigating measures in place?

Hi Joe. Yes things have changed – nuclear is no longer curtailed ahead of wind and solar. For a number of reasons the IESO grid operator changed the order of curtailment in early 2016. Now the curtailment order is hydroelectric first (based on marginal cost of production), then wind and solar based on energy market floor prices, then flexible nuclear (currently only the Bruce units have flexible capacity). If additional curtailment is necessary then the remaining inflexible nuclear capacity is shut down. Since curtailing hydroelectric and wind usually solves the surplus power problem we rarely see curtailment of nuclear production or a forced shutdown of a nuclear unit. The new curtailment order is much better with respect to the cost and emission performance of the power system. The IESO should be complimented for making that change to the curtailment order. Sorry for the delay in answering your question. Regards.

What in the world makes you think that Germany and the German people affected by wind turbines are happy with their wind turbine situation? There are plenty of complaints and health issues, believe me. Just because you haven’t heard it on CBC doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. “an unmitigated disaster”

Awesome findings & input from all. I just thought to present that It is unfortunate that perhaps the right people were not involved early on. Knowing that consumption vs. generation profiles are hard to align, especially if the generator can’t be controlled (e.g., generators based on wind and solar resources), energy storage should have been the first priority as opposed to an after the fact desperate plea to stop the waste & associated costs.

There is no cost-effective large scale storage , it hasn’t been discovered. Which is why Australia has stopped promoting renewables, and germany is pulling back, and Austria and Denmark are pulling back… and why for every coal plant shut down globally in the last year or two at least 3 or 4 are being built…

You forgot China that just added 35 GW’s of Solar in six months enough to power Ontario. or the USA adding another 16GW’s of solar, Or Germany having 23,000 wind turbines. Or California reducing their carbon emissions by 26% by adding tonnes o solar.

Please note the following published at the end of the above Engineers Ireland article. Why are Engineers Ireland pointing to a decision made by a government agency in Australia?

“The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not represent the views of Engineers Ireland. For details of the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision into the effects, if any, of ILFN on human health, please read the following document (PDF): waubra-and-acnc-decision. The section of the Australian decision that deals with Prof Alves-Pereira’s testimony is on pages 123-124.”